BERLIN (AP) -- For more than half a century, the legacy of World War II has meant that the mere mention of a new rise of German power sent shudders through European nations. Now, Germany is increasingly calling the shots for the entire continent — and few seem to mind.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski — whose nation lost millions of people in the Nazi invasion and occupation — shocked many this week when he made a dramatic appeal for greater German influence.

"You know full well that nobody else can do it," he told a largely German audience in Berlin. "I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity."

And:

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann, whose nation often lives in the shadow of its giant northern neighbor, dismissed out of hand any worries about renewed German dominance.

"I'm really happy," he said of Merkel's initiatives for saving Europe.

Some Europeans have also contemplated with horror what would happen if Germany got fed up with Europe's debt shambles and simply walked away.

"What is left of the euro if Germany says goodbye? A house of cards," Lennart Sacredeus, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats in Sweden's governing coalition, wrote in the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.

Further:

Finance Minister Francois Baroin this week talked about a "Franco-German political impulse" to save the euro. He noted Germany's economic successes compare favorably to France's debt difficulties, and concluded in a radio interview: "Germany is a model that interests us."

France's political opposition, meanwhile, has attacked Sarkozy for letting Merkel call the shots.

But Europeans seem increasingly inclined to support Germany's leadership — or at least to go along with it.

"This government is not afraid of Germany," Italian political analyst Sergio Romano said of Rome's new regime of technocrats tasked with solving the nation's debt crisis.

"It hasn't said so explicitly, but would say the same thing Sikorski did: We are more afraid of a powerless Germany than a powerful Germany."

While former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi bristled at German interference, new Prime Minister Mario Monti has called the German culture of stability one of its "better exports."

"I have always been considered to be the most German among Italian economists, which I always received as a compliment, but which was rarely meant to be a compliment," Monti said at a recent event.

Does the Bundesrepublik itself like this new state of affairs? Of course not:

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has acknowledged the dilemma, telling foreign correspondents this week in Berlin that the government feels like it's being pulled in opposite directions: criticized by some for not being aggressive enough, and by others for pushing its agenda too strongly.

"I feel like the firefighter," Schaeuble said, "who is being attacked by the arsonist."

This isn't to say that the hapless, bungling Merkel's policies aren't disastrous: they are. It isn't to say, either, that Germany is now a "nationalist" country, which other white nations should emulate: it isn't. What it does prove is that politics is not static. Sovereign countries which were strong once, and then fell into a period of weakness (like Germany and Turkey) can become strong again; countries which were, for a long time, under a period of foreign domination (Tunisia and Egypt) can, of their own accord, throw off the yoke; countries which were, for a long time, pursuing an independent course can, all of a sudden, tilt towards a sovereign foreign power, and then fall into its orbit entirely (Libya after 2003).

All countries have certain geopolitical situations which are peculiar to it, and can't be removed - no matter the dominant ideology. Hungary and Romania, for instance, remained traditional enemies, even after their turn towards communism following the Soviet invasion of 1944-45. There is a kind of DNA, geopolitically speaking, at work here. Hitler, in his Secret Book, goes into great detail regarding the 'geopolitical DNA' of nations such as Germany, France, Russia and Britain. French governments may come and go, he tells us, but French foreign policy ambitions remain the same. Ditto Russia...

One part of the German 'geopolitical DNA' is strength, and a dominating power - that is, a power which tends to dominate the Continent (especially the eastern half). Where does that strength, in the case of Germany, come from? From the 'national virtues', Hitler would say (although he would not use that term), which, in turn, stem from Germany's racial characteristics.

In the post-war period, the Allies, and the Soviets, attempted to brainwash the Germans - and succeeded. They managed to implant a great many false ideas into the heads of Germans (and just about everyone else). One false idea was that the German 'national virtues' never existed, and that Germany's supposed strength - in the military, political and economic realms - was phoney. Hitler and the National Socialists sold the German people (and the world) a false bill of goods. Hitler taught the Germans (what we would today call) 'positive thinking' - but that positive thinking wasn't based on reality. It was all lies. The classic made-for-TV American movie, The Wave (1981), shows that: the teacher in the film, as a classroom experiment, imbues his students with the old "Nazi" virtues - strength, discipline, respect for authority, punctuality, neatness, saluting, uniforms, a willingness to (in Nietzsche's words) 'command and obey'. The students' enthusiasm for their school work improves, as so does the enthusiasm of the school's football team, which becomes dedicated to improving its performance. But, in the end, it's all shown up to be bunk. The football team performs badly, despite all the motivational psychology pumped into its heads, and loses the big game. In the novel, by Morton Rhue, one character explains that all that positive thinking on the part of the football team was fine, but didn't substitute for experience and skills. (Obviously, this lost football game is a metaphor for Germany's military performance in WWII. Similarly, the 2003 German film, The Miracle of Bern, uses a sporting analogy for war. The Germans can't believe that they'll win the World Cup in 1954, because of their defeat in the last war). Naturally, the film The Wave is a liberal anti-fascist classic, which is shown in schools in Germany as an illustration in the evils of fascism. (The film is so useful for that purpose that a German remake appeared in 2008).

Leftists, for as long as leftism has been around, have always been attracted to the idea that man is determined by his material circumstances - i.e., his environment. Change the material circumstances, and you change the man. Hence, certain laws of economics and agriculture are suspended under socialism: workers can produce miraculous results, simply because they are now labouring under a socialist state of affairs (as opposed to a capitalist one); hence the tremendous results, in terms of production, expected by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, from their 'five-year plans'. Man is infinitely malleable... All one needs is socialism and relentlessly positive thinking. And Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were relentless optimists, who hated "defeatists" so much that they had them shot.

To return to the German example. The Left (German and non-German) has always viewed the Germans, particularly under Prussian and National Socialist rule, as a vicious, depraved people: hence its desire to change the German people through a program of indoctrination and "re-education". The German people could be remoulded into a decent, peacable, liberal democratic citizen of Europe, which no longer sought to bully other, smaller European nations - or conquer the world.

So, it was drummed into the heads of the German people, again and again, that Hitler's ideas - regarding the German 'national virtues' were just motivational psychology, 'master race' bunk and self-deception. The Germans were never as strong, or talented, or resourceful, or hard-working, as Hitler said they were. But the Germans, in the 1930s, believed Hitler, and so became swollen with pride. When a nation like Germany becomes convinced that it can run Czechoslovakia or Poland better than the Czechs or Poles can - well, it's a slippery slope to invasion, annexation and war. (The same goes for the swell-headed Italians, who had the temerity to believe that Italians could run Ethopia better than the Ethiopians). Obviously, decent nations have to unite and knock the stuffing out of Germany, and then re-educate it.

It's a simple narrative, this one, and it has a million holes in it. But, for decades, it was believed, and for one reason only: Germany lost the war. The proof is in the pudding, and the undeniable fact that Germany lost shows that Germany wasn't good enough. Germany's early successes were flukes, but, in the end, it was ground down by Allied military and industrial might. This is despite all the German military's undoubted skill, tenacity, bravery (and even liberal, anti-German commentators state that the German military possessed these qualities).

In Germany and Europe since the war, there have been two ideas: one is that Germany doesn't deserve to lead Europe (or at least, the Continent); the other is that Germany is weak and can't lead. The latter idea has now, in 2011, been blown out of the water.

To understand why, we have to take a detour into the history of left-wing theory.

Stalin's collectivisation of the Ukraine and southern Russia, Mao's Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's plan to boost Cambodian rice output to extraordinary levels, all failed, because, in the main, they ignored the realities of human nature. Which is to say, the Left has long been used to ignoring reality, shutting out facts which don't fit their theses, and suppressing those who happen to think differently. Indeed, critics are castigated as doomsayers, reactionaries and pawns of capitalism - or agents in the pay of foreign powers. (One can see, of course, the similarities between the communists and today's Left, in how they treat dissenters. In one era, they repressed, violently, the critics of collectivisation; in today's era, the critics of multiculturalism).

The Left ignores the reality of race, and 'national virtues', all the time, of course. Racialists may allege that x, certain ethnic group (which I won't name here), has certain racial characteristics: a tendency to violent crime; alcoholism; drug abuse; mendacity and welfare dependency; having children out of wedlock; low levels of educational and professional attainment; living in filthy and squalid surroundings (which they make filthy and squalid); etc. Leftists will angrily reject such negative characterisations, and put them down to white supremacist propaganda: in effect, whites, and "capitalism", put out lies, regarding this particular x ethnic group, in order to oppress and exploit them. In other words, it's a case of whites attempting to brainwash x ethnic group - and attempting to brainwash themselves, Hitler-style, by telling themselves that they are somehow a racially superior group, another "master race". (The Left tells us that these stories of race-supremacy are "capitalism". Race-supremacy fills whites with a false pride and sense of superiority, and so legitimates the oppression and subjugation of x ethnic group. This is a swindle, which prevents working-class whites from overthrowing their oppressors, the capitalists).

The realities of race, however, are quite different. Common sense tells us that whites, and x, are very different, in the aggregate. One doesn't need statistics on brain and skull size, or IQs, or even crime and educational attainment, to show this: everyday life shows it. One merely has to go to a country where whites and x racial group live together. The true nature of x as a racial group 'bursts through'.

The post-war indoctrination of Germany was very much a left-wing project: the fact that Americans took part in it so enthusiastically shows us to the extent to which Americans, and communists, are alike (as Alex Kurtagic says, Americans have always been liberals, and America's "conservatives", who idolise George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, idolise liberals). But, just as in my hypothetical example of racial minority x, the true nature of Germans, as a racial and national group, bursts through. It turns out that Germany is a strong nation, and a leader, after all.

A global call for the use of German power was not what anybody thought they would ever hear again. And Germans themselves are only slowly waking up to the fact that they are now seen as Europe’s “indispensable power,” as the historian Timothy Garton Ash wrote. So grave is the crisis of the common currency that it now represents the third moment in 100 years when Germany has unilaterally determined the fate of Europe — after 1914 and 1939. It’s that history that weighs on German action or inaction.

The Germany they are speaking of here isn't Turkish, or Muslim, Germany, of course. So maybe Hitler - who had an enduring faith in the German people, right to the end of the war - wasn't so wrong after all. Maybe Germans do possess strength, despite their appalling political leaders. Facts will out, reality will out, and no amount of leftist indoctrination and double-talk will change that.

But, one may say, isn't this just economics? The victors of WWII - America and Britain - are economically weak. But, supposing that the American economy picks up again? Won't Germany be relegated (again) to second-class status? Won't Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, drift back into the American-Israeli sphere of influence?

This is a good question. It's true that the Americans (in the 20th century) seemed to have nine lives. America went through a catastrophic period of weakness following its defeat in Indochina in the 1970s. Then Reagan was elected and steered the country to greatness again. Half of Germany, and all of Eastern Europe, fell into the American sphere without a shot being fired. American, and Israeli, power soared to undreamed-of heights in the late 1990s (as did the American stock market - this is no coincidence). America, by the late 1990s, built a global 'co-prosperity' sphere. The American example showed that, if you wanted to succeed, you had to become part of the American economic system. Even Russia and China had to become part of that system. The only alternative was mass impoverishment and starvation along North Korean lines.

It's clear that many American "conservatives" (and many Americans, full stop) are hoping for a Reagan moment - that is, for a new national saviour to appear. (The eighties, in the West, were a time for messianic politicians: Reagan, Thatcher, Hawke, viewed themselves as national saviours, redeeming their countries from ruin). Economic and geopolitical power are intertwined, and it's possible that another US president may cut taxes (especially capital gains taxes) and trigger off another huge economic boom, like Reagan and Clinton in the 1980s and late 1990s respectively. That is, Americans are very good at making money (this is one of their 'national virtues') and may, in this scenario, get on top again. Reagan and Clinton understood, intuitively, that tax barriers stood in the way of Americans trading and investing; so the answer was to lower those barriers. They also understood that strong economic growth was the best propaganda for the American political (and economic) system. Obama, of course, doesn't understand this, which is why he's been such a dismal failure.

As to whether Obama will be replaced by a new Reagan or Clinton is another story. I myself am divided as to the merits of an American economic revival. On the one hand, I don't like to see my fellow whites in America suffer from growing impoverishment and unemployment; I also happen to have an (intellectual) dislike of the Keynesian and monetarist schools of economics which Obama represents; on the other hand, I don't want to see a strong America, or Israel.

(Will a revived America, a new American ascendancy, hurt nationalism? There is an old, left-wing myth (one which liberals have adopted) that the nationalist vote goes down in periods of prosperity, and up in periods of recession. The media repeats this cliché again and again, but is it true? Surely the vote for the German NPD, or the British National Party, was better years ago - when their respective countries were doing better, economically?).

What is at stake here are two competing economic systems: an American 'co-prosperity sphere' and a European (that is, German, or Franco-German). The American sphere dominates the world, and when the American-Tel Aviv axis is politically strong, opting out of the American 'co-prosperity sphere' seems insane. Which is why, among other reasons, European nationalist parties such as the NPD appear to the average European as being quite out of touch with reality. That is, the idea that Europe could turn back to the wartime, Hitlerian economic system, during 1940-1945, seems ludicrous. This is even though the German-led system, at the time, was quite successful (the liberal, communist and Jewish coalition of anti-German propagandists will insist that that economic system was all built on slave labour and the pilfering of gold teeth from the mouths of gassed Jews; but we can take these stories with a grain of salt). Now, though, a German-led system doesn't seem like such a crazy idea: in fact, it is becoming a reality (and the inception of the EU, and the euro, laid the foundation for that reality). This is not because the German economy is so strong (and Merkel's policies are poison, economically speaking); it's just that it is strong relative to the rest of Europe right now. And this is without any swastikas, jackboots, invasions of Poland and the rest. Germany has reached this position by default. Germany always was a strong country, Germans always were a hard-working, disciplined, conscientious, productive and technologically-innovative people; the old realities have reasserted themselves.

We can see the UK's predicament. The UK, of course, always has had a strong aversion to the idea of one country dominating the Continent. In the 1920s, it was France; in the 1930s and 1940s, Germany. Which is why certain segments of the British political class (including the British Far Right, e.g., Enoch Powell) were extremely hostile to the EU from the beginning. They realised that Europe, over time, become a centralised power under Belgian, French and German rule; then French and German rule; then German rule. And, following that, an alternative economic system - an alternative to the dominant 'Atlanticist' one - would appear.

Australia's problem, of course, is not Germany and the Continent, but Asia: that is, fear of either Chinese or Japanese domination, either through Chinese labour, Japanese capital or (now in 2011) Chinese labour and capital. But, assuming that all nations revert to their geopolitical DNA, so to speak, Australia will eventually revert to type - and adopt economic and political policies towards Asia in accord with those of the past. There is hope.

But what of America (and Israel's) prospects? It is impossible to predict the future in politics with any degree of accuracy, but... My guess is that America, and Israel, right now, are down for the count and down for good. Either Obama will be re-elected, and America will continue its decline; or some 'consensus' Republican candidate, such as Romney, will be elected and continue the same anti-growth economic policies as Obama. (Romney's economic platform really is mediocre, and is derided by many right-wing economic commentators). It is true that the American electorate is intolerant of failure, and tends to take chances on untested candidates during times of uncertainty (which is why Obama was elected). There is a possibility that a new Reagan or Clinton may spring out of the woodwork. On the other hand, perhaps natural justice is asserting itself... American economic and military strength, which won the war for them (and dominance over Western Europe and most of Asia), was based on the Anglo-Saxon virtues and the gold standard; once it abandoned both (and it now has definitely abandoned both), it fell into decline.

Possibly, America will be Brazilianised in the future. That is, it will become a pyramidal society with a Hispanic majority, a Black and (native American) Indian underclass, and a small white minority (with Jewish-Americans at the top); there will be favelas (Brazilian shanty towns, full of Hispanics, poverty, crime, gangs, and squalor) everywhere.

The question then becomes: does Europe (and the West) want what America stands for now - Wal-Mart and Zionism? Or is there something else? The question then becomes one of a choice, not between two economic systems (Anglo-Saxon capitalism or 'European style' socialism) but between two contrasting ways of life...

Saturday, November 26, 2011

I have a nationalist friend who refuses to discuss the recent news story - of the 'Döner Kebab Murders' in Germany - on the phone. He is convinced that the secret police are tapping his phone, and will use whatever comments he makes to arrest him, and frame him, for the idea of supporting a 'Döner Kebab' copycat murder spree: while (rest assured) he never will murder any döner kebab vendors, he wouldn't put it past the state to frame him for wanting to do so.

This is unlikely. Suppose that two members of the Trotskyite-communist Socialist Alliance were discussing the latest outrages by the Colombian FARC, or the Indian Maoists - would they be arrested and framed for plotting acts of left-wing violence? But such is the paranoia on the Far Right.

As we know from the news, a group calling itself the National Socialist Underground in Germany killed ten Turkish immigrants - all vendors of disgusting döner kebabs - over the course of ten years, without being detected; they also robbed a bank and killed a female police officer. They made a bizarre video, which has the faces of their victims imposed on a 1960s Pink Panther cartoon (and slogans such as 'Actions, not Words'). Their actions were only discovered recently after two of the men in the gang committed suicide (by shooting each other) and then blowing themselves up with a timed explosive. (A female member turned herself in). The German press has, delightfully, christened the gang 'the Brown Army Faction', and the reactions have been predictable. Merkel has declared herself shocked and ashamed. There will be compensation paid by the German government (the German government is always good for money), a minute's silence in the Bundestag, while members of the German establishment are renewing their calls to ban the NPD and proposing that all German nationalists be registered with the German secret police.

Ironically, the story broke on the fiftieth anniversary of the first Turkish "guest-workers" arriving in Germany. (Turkish immigrants were brought in, as "guests", to fill a supposed labour-shortage; but the guests continued to stay, and now number 3 million - and many of them now find it hard getting any work at all).

The National Socialist Underground were undetected for a long time, and the Turkish immigrants in Germany are arguing that this is proof of an endemic German "racism". This, of course, is an argument against their position. Supposing that the Germans are (as the immigrants imply) a nasty, horrible, "racist" people: why, then, are the millions of Muslim immigrants in the country? Surely, in this instance, you'd want to stay in, and live in, a Muslim country, where you won't get discriminated against for being a Turk or Muslim? But actually, no. To the Turkish immigrants, the purpose of the Bundesrepublik is to protect them from the nasty "Neo-Nazis" and other racists, so their vendors can continue to sell their greasy döners in peace. (As a friend said to me, 'There are SO many Doner Kebab vendors in Germany, its unbelievable that they can all stay in business. It's easier to get a Kebab in Germany, than actual German food').

The attitude of Germany's Turks reflects the immigrant mentality: they believe they have the "right" to a better life - in a wealthy country like Germany. The fact that they are, by emigrating there in the millions, actually colonising those countries (like the Jewish settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank) with the effect of dispossessing the indigenous Germans (or British or Swedes), crowding them out of their own cities and reproducing, in those cities and council-housing estates, a downtown Istanbul or Islamabad or Mogadishu, in miniature - is of no concern to them. The white man has to lump it: the immigrant has his "right to a better life", and that's that.

As we know, this emigration is, in the end, counter-productive. There are no magical properties in the German, British, Australian or American soil, which make these countries prosperous, safe, clean; no, these qualities - which are really the virtues of the white nations - come about from the people. Displace the people, and you end up with something like a China, India, Pakistan, Mexico or Congo. (Now, nothing against those countries in particular, but it's evident that literally millions of their inhabitants are desperate to get away from them, and go somewhere else - preferably to a white man's country).

What sticks in the throat of the Germans (or Swedes, or British), is that the immigrants from Pakistan or Somalia don't even make the effort to pretend to like the native inhabitants (I myself have never met a Chinese or Indian immigrant who, while liking Australia, actually admits to liking 'Aussies' themselves). Indeed, it's only a matter of time before the immigrant population starts to make demands - loud demands - that the host country adopt to its ways. In a recent article in The Age newspaper ('Too-white TV must tune in to the real Team Australia', 26/11/2011), a few immigrant "entertainers" declared that Australian TV was 'too white', and that changes needed to be made. (The author writes, 'MORE than 2 million Australians were born in Asia and our Indian-born population has more than trebled in a decade, but mainstream television, other than SBS, rarely reflects this fact'). Presumably, these immigrants can go home to their countries of origin and watch Chinese, and Indian soaps all day long, and feel included that way; but they don't want to. It is we who have to accommodate them.

The irony of the Döner Kebab murders is that the liberal establishment sometimes looks at the murder of Turks, and other non-whites, as a sad necessity. As we know, Israel killed nine Turks on the Gaza flotilla, which was on its way to break the Israeli embargo of Gaza and deliver supplies of nappies, toilet paper and goat meat. As to why they were killed, well, in the disordered mind of the Jewish-Israeli, nappies and goat meat are, in fact, weapons of mass destruction which can be used to murder the poor little Jews of Israel (in the nearby settlement of Ashkalon, for instance). In addition, the sight of anyone wanting to help Israel's chief enemy - the Palestinians - fills Jewish-Israelis with a murderous rage. Hence, the murder of the nine Turks. The liberal establishment makes excuses: 'The Turks were attacking the Israeli commandos with iron bars! The commandos were acting in self-defence!'. But then, suppose that it was Jews who were embargoed by an occupying (Arab or German) army, and Jewish activists, seeking to break that embargo, were shot dead... The Western liberal establishment, despite being ostensibly egalitarian, does categorise peoples according to their worth: and Jewish Israelis, along with Jews in general, are on a higher plane than Turks and other non-whites.

Amusingly, I saw a news item, on SBS, with a story on Palestinian 'freedom-ride' activists, who tried to catch a Jews-only bus to Jerusalem. They were forcibly removed, from the bus, by Jewish-Israeli soldiers, to the approval and delight of the Jewish-Israeli passengers. In the interest of freedom from bias, the news report took up half its time explaining the Israeli point of view: Palestinians had, in the past, blown up buses with Jewish-Israelis; therefore, Palestinians had to be prevented from riding buses with Jewish-Israelis on them. Of course, the Palestinian 'freedom-riders' compared themselves to the heroic Negroes of the US civil rights struggle in the 1960s; but American proponents of segregation could have used exactly the same arguments as the Israeli government in this story (given the fact of interracial, black-on-white crime in the US).

These Palestinian tactics will, over time, prove to be very effective. The activists understand that the civil rights Negroes (along with Mandela) are venerated as gods in the West; they want to drive a wedge between the liberal Westerners and the (now) not-so-liberal lovers of Israel and Jewry. In short, they want to bring this hierarchy - where Jews are placed on a pedestal, above Muslims - to light.

Where, however, does this leave the Germans? The National Socialist Underground are the equivalent of the urban guerrilla, left-wing terrorist groups (such as the Baader-Meinhof gang, or Denmark's pro-Palestinian 'Left Wing Gang'). In their ideology, they more resemble the white nationalists of Robert Jay Matthews and the Order; they are not, so far as I can see, National Socialists: the Third Reich had excellent relations with Turkey (although Turkey never joined the Axis cause), and never suffered from a Turkish immigrant problem.

A friend of mine writes that the purpose of the modern German political establishment 'like any other Western one, is to ensure there IS no Germany, or Italy, or England, or America, or Australia... [The Bundesrepublik] too "Officially" supports the German people but "unofficially" would prefer to see them gone'. That is, the German establishment wants to get rid of the Germans, en masse, and replace them with an immigrant Islamic or African or Indian or Asian population; the same goes for the political establishments in Britain, Australia, etc. Whether or not these respective establishments succeed in their task is another thing altogether. Some countries (like Britain) are bringing in such huge numbers of immigrants that they are actually succeeding in displacing the white inhabitants to an enormous degree (57% of students in schools in England, for example, are now non-white); other countries, like Germany, are, despite their best efforts, not reaching British levels. The point is, the intent - and it is a genocidal intent - is there.

Morally, then, the likes of the National Socialist Underground stand on the same plane as the Palestinians, in the West Bank and Jerusalem, who commit acts of violence against Jewish settlers: violence is the last resort after any negotiations have broken down and attempts at a peaceful resolution have been thwarted. The Western political establishment views all nationalists and racialists and disgusting, filthy creatures. Nationalists are locked out of the political establishment, and out of the political (and intellectual) debates of our age. The German nationalists of the National Socialist Underground, then, felt that they had no choice but to commit violent crimes, which in turn leaves the political establishment feeling validated in their low estimation of nationalists.

It is always fascinating, from an intellectual point of view, watching extremist types - whether of the Far Right or Left - pursuing the logical implications of their ideology to the bitter end. It is also a saddening sight when the efforts of those same extremists are so counter-productive and futile. The Baader-Meinhofs and Red Brigades didn't succeed in their objectives (and, by the end, they seemed somewhat confused as to what their objectives were); the National Socialist Underground, despite its killing the döner vendors, won't put a dent in the 4.3 million-strong Muslim immigrant population. What's more, they may end up making things worse for German nationalism. The West, of course, reveres some terrorists (who make futile, and violent, gestures against repressive regimes - e.g., Mandela); but it comes down hard, especially hard, on right-wing, nationalist terrorists, and non-terrorists on the Far Right suffer too.

To return to my question: are the National Socialist Underground, and the "Neo-Nazis", really National Socialists?

One of my objections to the ideology of "Neo-Nazism" is that it (as in the case of Savitri Devi) puts Hitler and the National Socialists almost at the level of a trans-national religious cult; whereas Hitler and the National Socialists were Germans first, German nationalists second, and National Socialists third. The volunteers who fought in the German army in WWI, or in the Freikorps after WWI, were closer to the true, historical German National Socialism than many of the so-called "Neo-Nazis" of today.

One of the interesting things about the recent European financial crisis is that the old stereotype - of Germany, and the Germans, as the bully, and the bully with the power and the money - has returned, especially in the British media. One has to scan the tabloids daily to find comparisons of Merkel and Sarkozy to Hitler and Petain (the tabloids, of course, intend such comparisons to be offensive, because they are full of a vindictive hatred of the Germans, and the French, in general). All this proves that nations don't deviate much from their national types, no matter who is in charge; the fact that Sarkozy is a French Jew, and Merkel is a German who hates Germans (and daughter of an East German pro-communist priest), makes no difference. Now, in 2011, a powerful bully runs Germany, a toady of Germany runs France, an exhibitionist buffoon (the recently-deposed Berlusconi) runs Italy, while a spluttering, impotent Britain wrings its hands and looks on - all of this looks like the Europe of 1941!

Which raises the question: what if German does revert to type? What if decades of Allied brain-washing, Judaist Holocaust religious propaganda and Bundesrepublik-ism make no difference and the old, pre-1945 Germany feels compelled to reassert itself? This is what the British tabloids, and other commentators, are thinking. You can kidnap a man, and brainwash him, as in the famous movie The Manchurian Candidate (1962); but, after a while, the brainwashing will wear off and that man will revert to who he is - his essence. (And remember, brainwashing, as a method of mind-control, was devised, and first put into practice, by communists). As it is with human beings, so it is with nations: nature triumphs nurture.

I, almost daily, read (in the popular press) sombre ruminations by British commentators, who remind their readers that British policy on the Continent has always been to maintain a 'balance of power' and prevent any country from gathering up all the power for itself. Now that Germany is (under Merkel) accrueing power for itself, the British have to sit up and take note. But all the British can do is isolate themselves, further and further, from the Continental powers, and the EU. All this reminds me of the popular journalism of the 1920s and 1930s.

I myself think that these commentators are right. Because of the geopolitical, and economic, realities, Germany is reverting to the old nationalistic Germany - of Bismarck and Wilhelm II - whether it wants to or not, and despite the best efforts of its anti-German, anti-nationalist political establishment.

If only there were some way to connect the two threads - the realities of Germany's geopolitical position, and the Far Right German nationalism of the NPD: so far, they stand on separate sides of the fence.

I have written here before about how difficult it is for today's nationalist intellectuals to reproduce, exactly, the ideology of a German National Socialism or an Italian Fascism. (The Trotskyites who want to 'bring back' the old pre-Stalin communism have the same difficulty). It is a difficult intellectual exercise simply because so much water has flowed under the bridge. (You may as well try and understand the "original" Christianity of Jesus and his disciples, or the "original" Buddhism). Something happens, in cases like these, is that strange deviations of the doctrine emerge, which have little or no relation to the original. Modern-day Trotskyism, as represented by the Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative and other Australian communist groups, has no relation to Trotskyism or even communism. The modern Australian "Trotskyist" platform is: gay marriage, Palestinian nationalism and student rights (plus a dose of 'Free the Refugees'). Trotsky himself would have been baffled.

But what was National Socialism's original doctrine? One of the main components of it was a faith in the German people: that they were a resourceful, hard-working and above all resilient people - given the chance; other nations (and the less said of them, the better) didn't have those qualities. The same qualities stemmed from the people themselves; they weren't magical properties of the German soil. This was Hitler's "racialism", which communists and liberals have found so outrageous (and British nationalists, like the Churchill types, whose nationalism consists of hating, actively, other nations).

One of the reasons why they found it so outrageous was that "racialism" was that, in Hitler's ideology, in order for Germans to be 'given the chance', the Jewish population of Germany had to be booted out of the leading positions it occupied in commerce, academia, politics, the trade union movement, the media; and, furthermore, communism in Germany had to be quashed, for all time. Communism, and Jewry, had plenty of supporters at the time (and still do); these supporters regarded Jewry, and communists, as an inoffensive people undeserving of such a fate.

The German National Socialist doctrines here are logical and self-consistent: one proposition naturally flows from the other. Do they apply, however, to Germany (and Europe) today?

Yes and no. There is, constitutionally, a profound difference between Hitler's Germany and the Bundesrepublik today; there is also a profound spiritual difference - Judaism, Holocaustianism and the worship of the Jewish-Israeli people (all the one and same thing) is the official state-sponsored religion of Germany (and much of the West). But these 'overlays' are superficial. The core of Germany - the German people - is still there; furthermore, that core hasn't changed much since the time of Bismarck or Wilhelm II. The old characteristics of the Germans are popping up again, in the recent financial crisis. As Walter Russell Mead writes, in the Wall Street Journal:

France is basically a Club Med country with some northern features (historically often found among the Huguenots and Jews, out of which communities many of its most successful business leaders have come). It wants a "political" economic system for Europe, one in which political pressures can ensure the kind of steady devaluation of the euro that Italy, Spain, France, Greece and Portugal used to enjoy with their national currencies in the good old pre-euro days. The only problem with this old system was that it gave too many advantages to the Germans, Dutch and others (in the form of lower interest rates). France wants to stick the Germans with a Latin currency and Latin rules for running it.

Germany, on the other hand, wants the Latin countries to live by northern rules: Keep the currency sound, the budgets balanced and let the chips fall where they may. There is zero, repeat, zero consensus in Germany to go Latin and give the euro into the hands of slick French and Italian politicians. Technocrats bound by rules, the Germans can accept: That is why an Italian technocrat is following a Frenchman at the head of the ECB. But that is also why the Germans are being such sticklers about ECB rules against bailouts and unlimited ECB purchases of sovereign bonds.

How redolent this is of the (often crass) generalisations of Hitler's Table Talk and Mein Kampf! And yet, the likes of Mead are not accused of being German nationalists, National Socialists, or NPD-sympathisers.

The problem for the nationalist intellectual (and the German nationalist) is that we have been so deluged with propaganda and misinformation, regarding Hitler, National Socialism and the 'old' Germany (that is, the Germany before the Allied-Soviet occupation), is that we have lost sight of the old Germany - that is, we don't know what it looks like. As well as that, we have distorted perceptions of Hitler and National Socialism. (The opponents of National Socialism - Jewry in particular - are not the only source of these misperceptions. There are the "Neo-Nazis" themselves, who see Hitler as a "saviour of the white race" and a prototypical white nationalist).

Now, of course, the 'old Germany' is starting to come back. For decades, the Germans have been told that any manifestations of German strength are evil - and are the purest, deepest evil known to man; furthermore, Germans have been told that, in any case, they are very weak, and that life under the dreadful Allied-Soviet occupation has made them weak, and that they will continue to be weak for a long time. Now, though, the perception is that Germany is strong, and strong once again. They are exhibiting (according to the commentators in and outside Germany) the same old German virtues - the virtues which, ironically, were lauded by Hitler (e.g., the virtue of resilience - see Hitler's final radio address on January 30, 1945). The modern foes of Germany (among them, the British) see this and are furious: they recognise that, despite Merkel, despite the attempt to dilute, and destroy, the German identity through Turkish immigration and Islam - the old Germany is back.

Which isn't to say that the 'austerity' policies Merkel advocates aren't disastrous: they are. Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, France, need strong economic growth to meet the interest payments on their debts, and won't get that growth by raising their taxes to the stratosphere (the taxes are high enough already). Supply-side economic theory predicts that, if a nation starts cutting its tax rates to the levels needed to deliver increased production and commerce, interest rates on national debt will drop - just as they did on US debt in the 1980s (and this was despite the US, under Reagan, running a record deficit for the time). The "Latin" countries of Southern Europe are quite right to reject the austerity measures demanded by Germany and the EU. Furthermore, it is not clear as to why the EU has to use taxpayer's money to prevent bondholder losses (losses which would come about were Greece, Italy or Spain to default).

But the Eurozone is, despite the dire predictions of the financial press, not about to 'break up'. The euro is not collapsing: it is one of the strongest currencies in the world - along with the yen and the pound. And, were any of the Eurozone countries to abandon the euro, they would still have to pay back debts denominated in euros. Greece would be crazy to revert to the drachma (but then, no country in the Eurozone is seriously considering going back to the old national currencies, no matter what the financial press says).

The question is, if my thesis is correct, why, now, are countries such as Germany, France, Britain, Greece, Italy 'reverting to type'? Why didn't they do it years ago? The answer is America - or rather, America's decline in the past ten years. It has exhausted itself fighting two long wars (which aren't over yet) which it could not win, and thereby showed up the myth of American military supremacy. It is no coincidence that its economy took a nosedive around the same time. Political power, as Yockey never tired of saying, is a plenum, the opposite of a vacuum: it fills all available spaces. When power departs from one country, it arrives at another. The dead hand of America has been on Britain, Poland and France since the 1930s, and then all of Western Europe since 1945. Now, though, the grip has loosened somewhat. The nations of Europe are beginning to move around a bit - and rediscover what life was like before America.

Hitler would have attributed America's problems to 'The Jew' - and certainly, Jewish-American policy-makers are responsible for America's foreign policy woes (which will be compounded if America, at Israel's behest, attacks Iran). But Europe's problems - particularly the immigrant problem - are somewhat more complex. What is clear that European nationalism, particularly German nationalism, needs to adopt a new ideology to deal with the new realities. The German nationalists are completely out of step with the changes that are taking place. The NPD and Merkel (who may be voted out at the next election) need to meet in the same room, so to speak. But, at the moment, this is impossible. The Merkels want to Islamify Germany, thereby wiping them out, in order to atone for the "Holocaust"; the NPD want to revise the results of WWII, and throw out the Muslims. Neither can see past these (obviously irreconcilable) differences and see the commonalities - i.e., their shared 'German-ness'.

The quest is on for new political forms. A true German nationalist party would get rid of, not only Bundesrepublik theories and forms, but also the old National Socialism (or the caricature National Socialism has become). Again, this would be impossible for the time being, simply because (in my experience) German nationalists lack the foresight and imagination to do such a thing (but then, Germans have always been such a stubborn people).

But for non-Germans, today's events show the closest thing to an approximation of what the old Germany - before the Allied/Soviet conquest and subjugation of 1945 - looked like. The question is, do we like what we see?

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Some TV shows you 'can't put down': after you buy the box set of DVDs of a season of the series, you zip through them in lightning speed. One friend told me he watched season one of 'Battlestar Galactica' in two sittings - that is, he watched the whole season (which is around nine hours) in two marathon TV-watching sessions. From what I recall, I did exactly the same. I devoured, too, the box sets of other favourite shows: 'Wallander', 'Mad Men', 'The Tudors', 'Rome', 'Deadwood' and others.

With 'Caprica' (the 2010 prequel to 'Battlestar Galactica'), however, I skimped. Watching the show was a chore. After I bought the pilot (two hours), I found, some months later, the entire series (including seasons one and two), started watching it, grew bored after the first few episodes, and then left it on the shelf. I only recently picked it up again. The show does improve towards the last few episodes - as the story picks up in pace - and has a fairly good denouement in the last few minutes; but, on the whole, it disappoints.

Why? 'Caprica' falls down mostly because the writers and producers hadn't managed to put together a good story and characters.

In 'Battlestar' (both the original and the remade version), the story, and the conflicts, are simple. One recognises the two opposing sides - the Cylons and the humans - straight away. So one knows, at once, that the story will be about a conflict between these two groups. In addition, the plotline - about robot slaves revolting against, and murdering, their human masters - is timeless. The word 'robot' was coined by the Czech playwright, Karl Čapek, in his 1920 play, 'R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)'. Čapek's play is written about a murderous robot uprising against humanity: so the basic story of 'Galactica' was nearly sixty years old when the show debuted in 1978. The advantage of such a plot is that one can really explore all sorts of interpretations on it: are the robots (in this case, the Cylons) the repressed proletariat class of Marxist ideology? Are they Negroes, like the Haitian Negroes who revolted against the French in Haiti in the 18th century, slaughtering every one of them, to the last man, woman or child? Are the Cylons (who occasionally resort to suicide bombing) radical Muslims? In the remade 2003-2009 version, the producers of 'Battlestar' managed, very cleverly, to evoke Bush Jr's War on Terror, the Pacific Theater of WWII, Mormonism and many other things.

In 'Caprica', it is unclear as to who the opposing forces are, and even what the basic story will be. What we want to see is, of course, something simple: we want to see how the human race creates a new species - slave robots who will do their bidding - and how, through hubris, ignorance, cruelty, end up inciting those robots to revolt against them; and how the humans make the fatal error of giving the robots the ideological justification for such a revolt (in 18th century Haiti, it was the new French ideas of liberty and equality which helped justify, ideologically, the slave revolt; in 20th century South Africa, the Marxist ideology of black African national liberation). And, of course, being science fiction fans, we want to see Cylons and humans shooting at one another, or engaging in dogfights and naval battles in outer space. (I've always loved the giant, metal, clanking Centurion Cylons in the remade 'Battlestar' - I enjoy watching them stomp around, and looking at their sinister, flashing Cyclopean red eyes).

The pilot for 'Caprica' was, I thought, brilliant. It touched upon a number of themes: teenage angst and alienation; the pernicious effects of FaceBook, Twitter, IPhones, World of Warcraft and the like, on youth and on modern life; the theme of Faustian Western man, who defies the gods by attempting to create life and resurrect dead people; and, of course, radical Islam. The pilot was so much more modern, sleek and sophisticated than the remade 'Battlestar', and the ruthless scientist and businessman Daniel Graystone (played by the excellent Eric Stolz) is a kind of Steve Jobs character. Both Stolz and Esai Morales (who plays Joseph Adama) deliver great, brooding performances - you can the tension between them with a knife. Overall, the plot had momentum, and the ending left you wanting more.

That was the pilot: but the series itself wasn't as good. Possibly because, after watching the pilot, we (the viewers) wanted the series to get down to the more conventional sci-fi stuff. Instead, we had meandering around three or four groups of characters: the teenagers; Daniel Graystone and his wife Amanda (Paula Malcomson, from 'Deadwood' and 'Sons of Anarchy'), who are the WASP characters; the Monotheists, who adhere to a kind of jumbled Catholicism, Mormonism, and Islam; the Tauronians, who are a kind of Mexican-Hispanic tribe, with Sicilian and Italian values. None of these are opposing forces, in the way that the Cylons and humans were in 'Battlestar'. That is, you don't find one group lined up one side, and another group on the other, like two competing football teams. And that is one of the requisites of good drama.

One of the other great themes of science fiction is race and immigration. So many classic science-fiction stories are about an evil, predatory race of aliens who attempt to conquer, and colonise, the planet Earth - either through military means or, more often than not, through stealth (that is, by becoming immigrants who come in peace and whose presence, on Earth, will lead to splendid benefits - economic, social, political - to Earthmen). The remade sci-fi series, 'V', is one of many examples of this type of show.

In sci-fi, the theme of race is never far away. This is true in 'Caprica', and perhaps one of the reasons why it is so disappointing is the number of non-white actors. 'Battlestar' did have some non-whites (one of the main ones was a token Asian, the whiney Grace Park), but the focus was on whites - even Commander Adama (Edward James Olmos) was a white Mexican (they do exist). The lead actresses were Nordic types: Tricia Helfer, Lucy Lawless, Katee Sackhoff, Mary McDonnell, Nicky Klyne... Out of the the twelve Cylon-humanoid types, only three are non-white. In contrast, in 'Caprica', Joseph Adama is played by a Hispanic, his brother Sam by a very dark and swarthy Sephardi Jew from Israel, Adama's son by an Arab, and there are Indians, Blacks and Asians galore.

The strange thing is that each of the twelve colonies represent planets, like Earth, with different racial groups. Adama and his family come from Tauron, and the Tauronians are discriminated against by the wealthier and more powerful planets in the colonies (this isn't racism, but planetism). They are called 'dirt-eaters', a perjorative term, like 'wetback'. Adama is affiliated with a kind of Tauronian mafia, who seem to be primarily Mexican in their racial make-up, and the Tauronian language is a kind of Portugese-Italian-Spanish. The Tauronian mafia types (including Adama's annoying brother) behave more or less like every stereotype in every crime film there is; the brother is the dumb macho wog type, a cliché straight out of Coppola, Scorsese and 'The Sopranos' TV series. The implication is that the Tauronians - at least the ones involved in crime - are Mexicans; but, at the same time, they are a lot like American-Italians. (Does this mean that the producers want viewers to regard Mexican and Hispanic immigrants to the US as being more or less the same as American-Italians?). This was a mistake, I feel, on the part of the writers, and the inclusion of bizarre, retro-style clothing (often characters wear fedoras) was a mistake too.

(Interestingly, in a few sequences, we see flashbacks to the planet Tauron, during a time of civil war between revolutionary guerrillas and the army. Obviously, these sequences are meant to invoke the brutal wars in Central America in the 1980s - in Guatemala and El Salvador. This only reinforces the perception that Tauronians are Hispanic, even though a few prominent Tauronians are played by white, Nordic actors).

Also annoying were the teenagers in the show - especially the ones in New Cap City, another big mistake. Too much of the show relies on CGI, which is one of the banes of modern film-making: CGI is everywhere in 'Caprica', even in the credits, and makes everything (especially the virtual reality world of New Cap City) look horribly fake. Towards the end, the Cylons are all badly-done CGI, which makes them look unreal. Whereas 'Battlestar' really strove to be as realistic as possible: the clock on the command deck of the Battlestar had an old piece of sticking tape stuck to it, all the phones had cords, computers were left over models from the 1990s. (The approach, which I call science fiction realism, was taken from 'Blade Runner', 'Alien' and the Terminator films). Live action and models were used, as much as possible. The theme of virtual reality looms large in 'Battlestar': the Cylons have the ability to project themselves into virtual-reality dream worlds, for instance. But these sequences are, obviously, filmed in real places. In 'Caprica', however, it's all CGI.

Realism is important, especially in sci-fi. Part of the reason why 'Battlestar' was such an artistic success was that it mirrored modern Earth reality, and particularly modern-day Canada, as much as possible. It was the opposite of a 'Star Trek' or 'Star Wars', and really did convince you, almost, that this is what Earth, in the future (maybe a hundred years from now?) would look like. The characters behaved, and lived, just like modern-day Canadians or Americans. In 'Caprica', though, the producers went a little crazy: 'Let's show a world where all drugs are legalised! And so is polygamous marriage! And gay marriage!', etc., etc. On top of that, there are the environments: the planet Geminon, which is ruled by a kind of Catholic nun-Mother Superior (in outer space) looks like something out of a fantasy novel - more in keeping with the George R. Martin 'Game of Thrones' series more than anything else - and New Cap City is just woeful. Everyone there dresses in a horrible goth/retro 1920s gangster style. It's a combination of clichés from 'Dark City', 'The Crow' and other films of that genre.

Good TV drama tries to recreate a distinctive milieu as closely as possible: 'Rome' and 'Deadwood' were revisionist sword-and-sandal, and Western, shows respectively, which aimed to portray ancient Rome, and Dakota in the 1870s'; 'Mad Men', Manhattan in the early 1960s. TV shows are all lies, of course, but is the verisimilitude which gives a show the ring of authenticity. The producers of 'Caprica' should have stuck to modern-day Canada, and they should have stayed well away from CGI (but then, many filmmakers are making the same mistake).

In general, though, the faults were ones of structure, in the story itself, but in the characterisation. 'Battlestar' had a very large ensemble (mostly white) cast - six female characters, six males - and the really successful, long-running American soap shows also have a large (mostly white) cast, with an equal ratio of males and females. With such a large number of characters, there is bound to be someone that a viewer - male or female - can latch onto, like and sympathise with. But the cast of 'Caprica' wasn't big enough. It was this, and the lack of a strong plot, which brought it down. In soaps, of course, the plot meanders all over the place: characters cheat on one another, or get married (only to cheat again soon after), and hatch schemes for destroying each other; occasionally there will be a murder or a kidnapping to liven things up. 'Caprica' could have been a sci-fi soap (and one producer compared it to 'Dallas'), and possibly the first in a new genre. But the dictates of the 'Battlestar' backstory meant that 'Caprica' would have only succeeded, artistically and commercially, if it stuck to the old science-fiction formula of Čapek's play.

All of this explains, I think, why 'Caprica' never caught on, and was cancelled after two seasons.

Despite all this, I have high hopes for the next 'Battlestar Galactica' prequel, 'Blood and Chrome' (scheduled to be shown in 2011): maybe this will have a little more Cylon and human conflict, space battles, things blowing up, etc., and should be more meat-and-potatoes science-fiction (for those of us who like these things). But 'Caprica' is only to be recommended for hardcore fans of 'Battlestar'.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Again and again one has to ask: why is that extremist political movements, of both the extreme Left and Right, attract so deadbeats, losers, mentally-subnormal people, wasters, lumpenproles, scum?

I have to qualify my statement here, and specify which type of person I'm talking about. The type is: someone who is intensely alienated from their community and the society around them; who doesn't have the strength to hold down a job; is constantly in debt or in financial trouble, is pursued by creditors, or chased by debt-collectors, who can't, or won't pay utilities bills, phone bills, Internet bills, etc.; who has a history of brushes with the law; who can't be trusted with money or any sort of responsibility; who generally isn't someone you'd want, over in your house, for dinner, or to live with, or work with; who often suffers from what modern-day psychologists call a 'personality disorder'; who won't keep their house, their front yard, or anything, clean and tidy; who, in general, is a species apart, from all the apparently nice, normal decent people who appear to make up around 90% or so of the white population out there, who we live with, socialise with and work with.

I have run into, quite often, people of this type, on both sides of politics. On the Far Right, frequently, this type isn't interested, a jot, in the (white) community and society around them, or the fate and well-being of the Western culture and civilisation as a whole; in fact, they are so alienated from it - so far outside its traditional laws, customs and morals - they would be freaks and outcasts even in an ethnically-homogenous white society (like that of the 1950s and 1960s). They are racialist, but not out of love, or a sense of involvement with, or a feeling of concern with, the white race and the white peoples of the West. No, they are racialist, merely out of a desire to place themselves above, to hierarchisise themselves, the Chinese, Indian and Arab immigrant populations. They may be low in the totem pole, so to speak, among white people, but, they assure themselves, they are superior - in some way - to the Chinese, the Indians, the Muslims. We nationalists know what type of groups, within the nationalist spectrum, individuals of this type gravitate to (I won't name any of them here, lest I offend the sensibilities of "comrades" in the movement).

On the Left, the situation is, more often than not, just as bad. We have anarchists who live in squats, on a level little better than the animals whose rights they claim to champion; sexual deviates, who use their deviancy as the basis of a (wholly new, and really un-Marxist) form of anti-capitalist and neo-Marxist politics; ferals and dirty, grubby hippie types, often young, who waste time and money (not their own, but money from the welfare state) on pointless "anti-fascist" "activism", instead of marrying, starting a family, working, providing for one's children, paying off a mortgage and mowing the front lawn, like most decent white people do.

The good-for-nothings on the Left claim to represent the working classes, and some of the good-for-nothings on the Right claim to be "National Socialists" in the German tradition. But (bear in mind that the NSDAP was the National Socialist German Workers Party) neither of them work. It takes discipline to hold down a job, which can sometimes be a drudgery; which can require getting up, very early in the morning, and commuting long distances; and working with unpleasant (and, nowadays, often Chinese, Muslim, African and Indian) colleagues and a customer base. And that is a discipline that our good-for-nothings just don't have.

It is these people who are the true race traitors. While the immigrant Indian or Chinese comes to our country, marries, breeds (and non-white immigrants to Australia are prolific breeders), gets a job, takes a mortgage, and brings more and more of his relatives, from his country, and takes full advantage of the existing opportunities here, the deadbeat Leftist or nationalist does nothing: he lives as a fringe person in his own society. By living what is (by the standards of any society) a worthless and immoral existence, he is leaving the country wide open for exploitation, by non-whites, who will take up all the obligations of a normal working, family person and thereby end up supplanting him in his own country. The Leftist or nationalist who is a deadbeat is, in effect, practising individualism - and by individualism, I mean a lack of any responsibility to one's white community as a whole.

Why? Both the extreme Left and Right are fringe movements (for the time being) and, as a result, tend to attract fringe people: that's the conventional answer. I wonder, now, though, whether this explanation really goes to the root of the problem: I'm becoming more and more convinced that the answer lies in ideology.

In Marxism and anarchism, for example, we have an anti-work ideology. Marx famously refused to work, and support his wife and children, because he was determined not be a labouring machine, exploited by capitalism for profit. (We can see, of course, how Das Kapital justifies precisely this sort of attitude). As a result, his wife and children starved, and lived in squalor - simply because the father, the traditional breadwinner and patriarch, refused to perform his duties. Anarchism is the same, of course, but at least they are a little more honest about 'not liking work' than the Marxists.

In nationalism, however: where does the justification come from? Well, one has to look at the work of our most revered intellectuals. Take this excerpt from Savitri Devi's The Lightning and the Sun, 'Kalki, the Avenger':

The streets are full of dregs of humanity, at least full of bastards and of sub-men. One only has to look at the faces one sees in the over-crowded buses, or in the cinemas and dancinghalls and cafes in large towns, nay even in small ones, even in the countryside, everywhere, save in those lands in which the dominant race is relatively pure. It is a pitiful sight; a pitiful world; a world up-side-down; a world in which the average cat or dog is, as such, immeasurably healthier, more beautiful — more perfect — than the average man or woman and a fortiori than the average post-1945 State ruler; nearer to the ideal archetype of his species than most present-day human beings and specially than the official (and the hidden) leaders of the present-day “free world” — President Eisenhower (or rather, Mr. Baruch) Churchill, Mendes-France, etc., (let alone their most obedient servants Konrad Adenauer, Theodor Heuss and Co) — ever were to the ideal archetype of man, God’s masterpiece.

If only the, ugly sub-men were capable of lofty thoughts — or simply
of thought — that would be something! But they are not. And their leaders are worse than they, not better. True, they all speak of “free thinking”; speak of it, and write about it. They criticise their former friends (the Communists) for “killing individual thought.” Yet they are themselves the first ones to lack both freedom of judgement and individuality. They all have the same views; and the same ideal. Their views are those of the ruling press. Their ideal is to “get on in life,” i.e., to make money and to “be happy,” which means: to enjoy tasty food, fine clothing, lodgings provided with the latest commodities; and, in addition to that, as often as possible, a little drink, a little light music, a little sport, a little love-making. Maybe, they call themselves Christians — or Hindus, or anything else. But whatever religion they might profess, their faith is skin-deep. Nothing, absolutely nothing more-than-personal — and, a fortiori, more-than-human, — interests them. The one thing they all pray for, when they pray at all, is “peace”; not the unassailable, inner peace of the Best (of which they have not the foggiest experience), but peace in the sense of absence of war; the indefinite prolongation of a “status quo” which allows them to think of to-morrow’s little pleasure without the fear of to-day’s deadly danger; peace, thanks to which they will, undisturbed, — so they hope — be able to go on rotting in the midst of that increasing comfort, which technical progress secures them; peace, thanks to which they expect to remain (or gradually to become) happy — in the manner pigs are happy, when they have plenty to eat and clean straw to lie upon.

Hardly the thoughts of someone who is 'well-adjusted'! Now, of course, the brilliant Devi has an axe to grind, true. But the sort of alienation, evinced in the above quotation, is hardly conducive to discipline - the discipline of paying one's bills; paying one's debts; of getting up on time; of going to work; of caring for people who are dependent on you and more vulnerable than you (e.g., children); of not lying... In short, if you start to think things really are as bad as Devi says, you are not going to put the effort in - into working, keeping alive, being a responsible person in this society of ours.

Without the acknowledgement of customs and rules - and a society is made up of customs and rules - a society, no matter what colour it is, just can't survive. The reason why Anglo-Saxon societies (such as in North America, or (white) South Africa, or Australia and New Zealand) do so well is that, traditionally, they have stuck, more than most, to these rules. Whereas certain other ethnic groups - even within the white race - don't stick to these rules, and in fact, seem to be convinced that lying (for instance) in business, or everyday life, is a way of 'getting ahead'.

In the same way, someone who reads Das Kapital, and believes in it, is going to be less inclined to work in the capitalist system. After all, the central thesis of that book is that anyone who does work is getting 'done over', exploited, and horribly, by the capitalist, for the sake of capitalist profits. Labour, in the capitalist economy, is, in essence, exploitation, pure and simple. This intellectual thesis filters down to the deadbeat, work-shy Leftist.

The deadbeats in the nationalist scene, of course, often (in my experience, at any rate) don't read Savitri Devi (they tend not to read at all). But ideas, at the top end of the spectrum, have a tendency to filter down to the lower end. The ideas of a Devi, a Yockey, an Evola, do tend to descend to the (less intellectual) on the Far Right, and so a lumpenprole will find his justification - morally, ideologically - for his deeds in some of the ideas of these great thinkers.

This raises an interesting question. Many nationalists ask me how we can go about attracting more 'normal people' to nationalism, and how, at the same time, can induce the freaks, weirdos, lumpenproles to go away. One possible answer is that we can change our movement by changing our ideas. We have to look - take a long, deep, hard look - at the intellectuals whose work provides the basis of our movement. What idea, or set of ideas, is it that attracts these freaks and weirdos? Which thinker, which book?

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Some nationalists have asked me, 'If your article, "The Rupture", is right, what do we do?'. Here I will attempt to provide an answer, or the beginnings of an answer, to that question.

The thesis of that article was that attitudes in the West have changed irrevocably since the 1950s and 1960s. The attitudes which have changed are towards: non-white immigration; mixed-race marriages; homosexuality; drugs; pornography; births of children outside marriage; co-habitation of men and women outside marriage; evasion of military service; smoking; physical health and fitness; and a host of other things. As well as that, attitudes towards certain elements of the West's history have changed. In the 1950s and 1960s, American youth were taught to regard Davey Crockett as a great American hero; now they are taught to venerate Martin Luther King Jr., or perhaps the black communist activist, Rosa Parks.

Really something that sums up the changes that have taken place since the 1960s is the career of 'Johnny Anglais', a teacher in Britain who was dismissed from his job for moonlighting as a male stripper. Now, in 2011, he has been reinstated to his job, and writes articles extolling the British to become less prudish and more accepting of pornography. Can one imagine a Johnny Anglais getting his job back in 1980? Or even 1990?

The avalanche of non-white immigration to the West, and the white indifference (and helplessness) in the face of it, is part and parcel of the same social changes which produced a Johnny Anglais. They come together in the same package. One cannot have non-white immigration without the push for gay marriage; or female priests without interracial marriage. They are the one and the same thing. Nationalists, unfortunately, fail to recognise this. Often they seem like bewildered whites, transported through time to the present day from the 1960s and 1970s to the present: 'What are all these non-whites doing in Los Angeles? Melbourne? London? I don't understand it! It was all white yesterday - how did this happen?'. The answer is that it happened in tandem with all the other social changes.

Using this (undeniable) fact, a proponent of immigration could make it the starting point of the following argument: 'You'll agree that certain of the social changes wrought after the 1960s were good. Immigration was one of those changes, but, unfortunately for you, we couldn't have one change without another'.

Yes, it is true that certain things, now in 2011, are very good, and that we didn't have those things in the 1960s and 1970s. Among them are: mobile phones, the Internet, CDs and DVDs. In addition, certain of the social changes were, indeed, good. There is much more awareness of sexual crimes against children, whereas (if the news is to be believed), such crimes were rampant in state homes, religious schools, etc., in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. (But one of the side-effects of that awareness is an extraordinary media obsession with paedophilia - an obsession with paedophiles (viewed, of course, in a negative light) and with homosexuals (viewed, of course, in a positive light) seems to be one of the dominant themes of the news media these days). But while I agree that all the changes did come at the same time, in the same package, so to speak, I disagree that it was necessarily so. We could have had an ethnically homogenous society, and, at the same time, cracked down on smoking, obesity, paedophilia, and developed an acceptance of defacto partnerships too.

My proponent might persist: 'These changes were part of a naturally-occurring historical process for which no-one was responsible. You try and find heroes and villains in the piece - by blaming the 1960s social revolution on Jewish counter-culture activists, for example - when, in reality, these events occurred by themselves, of their own accord. No-one was to blame for them, any more than anyone is to blame for natural phenomena, like the wind and rain, or the orbit of the planets around the sun... Therefore, you have to accept the fact of immigration, and the erasure of white, Christian and Western identity because of that immigration'. This argument, in my view, is a kind of quasi-Marxist argument. The events of history, so the Marxist argument runs, are part of an inevitable historical process, which no-one is in control of. The economies of the West shifted, naturally, from feudalism to 19th century capitalism, and will, in the end, terminate in socialism and communism. Individuals don't really exert that much of an influence upon events, and neither do ideas - events are determined by economics or, in the words of Althusser, 'social structures'. When we apply an analogous argument to multiculturalism and immigration, we end up with: 'Multi-culti, immigration and the death of the white race is inevitable, white man: face up to it! No-one is to blame. Whites have had their time in the sun; now it's time for them to shuffle off the stage, and make way to China, India, Islam, Africa...'.

My response to this is to quote the words of Hitler: 'What is made by man, can be unmade by man'. Multiculturalism and immigration didn't come about 'naturally', 'spontaneously'; they came about by a concerted push, from mainly white liberals, and Jews, who were determined to launch a massive program of social engineering, with the intention of changing the face of the West forever. They achieved this with the connivance of some of the members of the WWII generation - the Whitlams, Frasers, Ted Heaths, Lyndon Johnsons - who had decidely liberal views which were radically out of step with those of their peers. (One can't blame the baby boomer generation entirely). The views of the sixties radicals were anti-establishment at the time, but now are the consensus. It's only a matter, now, of replacing that establishment, of extirpating the Sarkozys, Merkels, Camerons and Obamas.

The question is, how to do it?

The problem seems insurmountable, when one considers the extent of social changes which have taken place. If one were to do a survey of every white American, asking them if whites should be prevented, by law, from marrying Afro-Americans, or Hispanics - their reaction to such a question would be bafflement, followed by 'No'. The same survey, in the UK, but with a different question - should whites be prevented from marrying Indians or Afro-Caribbeans - would meet with the same reaction. Likewise, a survey in Australia, on whether or not whites should be prevented from marrying Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipinos. In a similar fashion, were one to survey their opinions on Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and desegregation, the answer would be overwhelmingly positive; as to their opinions on Apartheid and South Africa, overwhelmingly negative. The possibility that desegregation in the US, and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, was a disaster - for both blacks and whites - would never occur to them. And why not? Not even today's "conservatives" would dare suggest such a thing.

Aside from the change in attitudes, there are the changes in the facts of the ground: that is, the sheer number of immigrants here in the West (and a number which is growing every day). Even mainstream politicians, like David Cameron, nowadays make vague promises to 'cut immigration'; a politician in the US can gain some popularity by promising to do something about illegal immigration from Mexico. But no politician ever talks about what's to be done with the enormous number of immigrants already here in the West. How do we make them go home? Can we, in fact, make them go home? How?

Everything could be changed through a radical change in the political system. But that cannot be achieved without something like civil war. It would be delightful if a Libyan style convoy of armed revolutionaries were to descend on Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Canberra, turf the politicians out and occupy the White House, 10 Downing Street, the Lodge, just like the Libyan rebels did with Ghaddafi's palaces. Unfortunately, nationalists don't have an army and they are a small minority in the population with minimal political support for the time being.

To revert to my analogy in "The Rupture": we whites are like the humans in the series Battlestar Galactica. The enemies of the human race, the Cylons, have won a devastating, overwhelming victory. In Battlestar-, the initial Cylon attack was modelled on Pearl Harbour, and many of the space battles which followed - between human and Cylon spaceships which were, essentially, aircraft carriers - were evocative of the Pacific War. In the real Pacific War, of course, the US, the British and Australia managed to build up enough men and materiel to strike back, defeat the Japanese and conquer Asia; in Battlestar-, the humans don't have the military resources, or even the numbers, to mount such a counter-offensive. In that regard, their plight is similar to ours.

In season two of Battlestar-, it is revealed that a small number of humans, on the planet Caprica, did survive the terrible, devastating Cylon nuclear onslaught. They take to the hillls and take up guerrilla warfare against the Cylon occupiers. Militarily, such a course of action doesn't make much of a difference, but it does make life harder for the Cylons, and something is better than nothing.

In the same way, we nationalists have to continue to exist - and cause discomfort and embarrassment, to the liberals, multi-culturalists, multi-racialists and proponents of mass non-white immigration (not to mention the non-white immigrants themselves), with the fact that we do exist. Is it the year 2011, and we still have people who oppose the joys of diversity? Who insist on asserting a unique white identity in the face of globalisation and multiculturalism? Who have the same attitudes towards mixed-race marriages as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialists? How can it be?

Not only do we nationalists need to continue to survive, but we also need to be intellectual. If anyone ever reads any compendiums of writings by the New Left, one sees the hippies and beatniks were an intellectual bunch, and made their arguments within the intellectual framework of their time. It wasn't all peace, love, and smoking dope. The New Left, via theorists such as Marcuse, drew upon the Western cultural and intellectual tradition (one of the paradoxes of the West is that it gave birth to ideas which have the potential of undermining it and eventually destroying it). To bring about a cultural revolution - and this is what the sixties boomers did - one first needs an intellectual revolution...

At this point in time, no one political party is strong enough, or powerful enough, to turn back the tide. This is, in part, because we are now fighting on enemy territory - the Western political landscape now belongs to the enemy, not to us. The initial offensive, launched back in the 1960s, devastated our position, and we have no position to fall back on. (We whites can't exactly leave America, Canada, Europe, Australia, and migrate to an island somewhere). What we need to do, then, is follow the guerrilla dictum and harass, hound and harry the enemy. The modern leftist anti-capitalist movement has the right idea, I think, in regard to tactics - it's just that they are confused (and hopelessly self-divided) when it comes to ideology.

We are, as Evola said in another connection, men among the ruins. We, now in 2011, need to be guerrillas among the ruins.